Submitted by Rob Lockett (not verified) on Sat, 12/22/2007 - 12:23pm.
Anne, thanks for linking to this part of the conversation. I think Paul nailed the dilemma with the title of this page and his first question in response to the idea in question...
The fact is, that 'the post modern assertion' (that we cannot know anything with certainty) refutes it's own assertion.
This contradiction is a very difficult thing to wade through, but it is vitally important for us to pin it down. I think Dr. Zacharius helps us understand this issue in his address to the United Nations given in 2002. I invite all of you to read what he had to say.
His may only be one window through which to examine the dilemma, but I personally believe that it is the 'one window' through which all windows must cohere. We must assume that our thinking is valid (at least fundamentally) otherwise, as Paul so aptly pointed out, 'what then is the business of inquiry'?
I am impressed with the depth and honesty to which all of you have committed yourselves with regard to thought. Unlike some, you do not seem to be afraid of a challenge. I am sorry for engaging in such a confrontational manner previously, though it was necessary for reasons I think we all perceive.
The fact is, Dr. Zacharius is speaking to thoughtful people such as yourselves, and he affirms the usefulness of the endeavor.
Inquiry
Anne, thanks for linking to this part of the conversation. I think Paul nailed the dilemma with the title of this page and his first question in response to the idea in question...
The fact is, that 'the post modern assertion' (that we cannot know anything with certainty) refutes it's own assertion.
This contradiction is a very difficult thing to wade through, but it is vitally important for us to pin it down. I think Dr. Zacharius helps us understand this issue in his address to the United Nations given in 2002. I invite all of you to read what he had to say.
His may only be one window through which to examine the dilemma, but I personally believe that it is the 'one window' through which all windows must cohere. We must assume that our thinking is valid (at least fundamentally) otherwise, as Paul so aptly pointed out, 'what then is the business of inquiry'?
I am impressed with the depth and honesty to which all of you have committed yourselves with regard to thought. Unlike some, you do not seem to be afraid of a challenge. I am sorry for engaging in such a confrontational manner previously, though it was necessary for reasons I think we all perceive.
The fact is, Dr. Zacharius is speaking to thoughtful people such as yourselves, and he affirms the usefulness of the endeavor.
Please check out what he had to say...
http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=13